UP & Double Diesels

[RME]

tree68

I have no doubt that he's right, but it's interesting that it took ten years to catch the mistake...

It's been corrected in other threads on here, including at least once by me (under a different user name).  Sometimes you can't get 'em all before they drop off the radar!

Fortunately we have truth-seeking people who care to send the very best when they find unresolved error... I resemble that remark.

[kgbw49]

For those of you who might have been "Home Improvement" fans, I am surprised there was not a "Binford 8000" model. Arr-arr-arr.

U50C

C855 A Unit

C855 B Unit

DD35

DD35A

DD40A(X) Centennial aka "Big Jack"

 

[CShaveRR]

He is absolutely correct, but I figured that as long as they were dstinguished in some way I wouldn't make a big deal of it.

UP used to be a faster railroad than it is today (they even slowed down portions of the CNW after the merger!).  The DDA40X units and a bunch of SD40-2s were geared for 80 m.p.h. at one time.  Nowadays you run into a lot of speed restrictions depending on the type of freight equipment you're hauling (some in the name of safety, some for fuel conservation).  Some of the cars that used to be run at 70 or better are now restricted to 50 or even 40...if they're allowed at all!

[tree68]

Norm48327

Thread resurected from the grave.

Indeed!  

I have no doubt that he's right, but it's interesting that it took ten years to catch the mistake...

[Norm48327]

Thread resurected from the grave.

[Super Chief Val]

tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by shmc



i wasn't sure what the dd35's look like so i searched. figure id post it up on here!

That's a DD35B - there were "A" units as well. Just add a cab on one end...

 

tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by shmc



i wasn't sure what the dd35's look like so i searched. figure id post it up on here!

That's a DD35B - there were "A" units as well. Just add a cab on one end...

 

Actually, Tree68, you are incorrect.  That is NOT a DD35B.  The official model designation by EMD is DD35, even though it is technically a B-unit.  This fact is further obscured by most railfans because UP has appended a "B" after each unit's road number.  Even so, it is still a DD35.  The cabbed unit is officially designated as DD35A by EMD in order to distinguish it from the DD35.  Yes, I realize that this defies standard convention, but this is a historical fact, none the less, from EMD, no less.  We need to get used to calling the B-unit a DD35 (no B) and the A-unit a DD35A (A required).  After all, those are the correct model names. 

 

What is sad is that none of the DD35's and DD35A's exist.  They were all scrapped. 

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by coborn35

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

there are operational limits as to how many locomotives can be used at the head end of a train. UP is frequently at that limit on Sherman Hill and Echo Canyon. I have seen two trains with 8 engines in the last 3 months. The "double diesels" were one approach to addressing their horsepower needs. The 8500 series 6000 hp units were another approach. I am wondering that with the improved reliability of today's locomotive, a double engined unit might again be practical.

dd

Ironically, on the Utahrails website article, by Don Strack that SSW9389 linked above; it says that most of the U-50's rode out their time on the eastern lines of UP. On those Kansas mountains, I presume?[;)]

long, high-speed freights across Nebraska.

dd

You mean long,long slow freights?

From what I've read, UP liked to put about 15,000 h.p. on those trains. I don't think they were too slow.

[coborn35]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

there are operational limits as to how many locomotives can be used at the head end of a train. UP is frequently at that limit on Sherman Hill and Echo Canyon. I have seen two trains with 8 engines in the last 3 months. The "double diesels" were one approach to addressing their horsepower needs. The 8500 series 6000 hp units were another approach. I am wondering that with the improved reliability of today's locomotive, a double engined unit might again be practical.

dd

Ironically, on the Utahrails website article, by Don Strack that SSW9389 linked above; it says that most of the U-50's rode out their time on the eastern lines of UP. On those Kansas mountains, I presume?[;)]

long, high-speed freights across Nebraska.

dd

You mean long,long slow freights?

[waltersrails]

sad to see money wasted on ugly engines that wasn't very good.

[rockisland4309]

I remember as a kid seeing the U50C's and DD35B's running through Marysville, KS. (I never did a see DD35A though.) And when they ran the local to St. Joe, MO the power would always be a GP30 and couple of GP30B units or it would be a GP9 w/the GP9B's in the consist. Those were the days.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

there are operational limits as to how many locomotives can be used at the head end of a train. UP is frequently at that limit on Sherman Hill and Echo Canyon. I have seen two trains with 8 engines in the last 3 months. The "double diesels" were one approach to addressing their horsepower needs. The 8500 series 6000 hp units were another approach. I am wondering that with the improved reliability of today's locomotive, a double engined unit might again be practical.

dd

Ironically, on the Utahrails website article, by Don Strack that SSW9389 linked above; it says that most of the U-50's rode out their time on the eastern lines of UP. On those Kansas mountains, I presume?[;)]

long, high-speed freights across Nebraska.

dd

That makes sense.Thanks.

[dldance]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

there are operational limits as to how many locomotives can be used at the head end of a train. UP is frequently at that limit on Sherman Hill and Echo Canyon. I have seen two trains with 8 engines in the last 3 months. The "double diesels" were one approach to addressing their horsepower needs. The 8500 series 6000 hp units were another approach. I am wondering that with the improved reliability of today's locomotive, a double engined unit might again be practical.

dd

Ironically, on the Utahrails website article, by Don Strack that SSW9389 linked above; it says that most of the U-50's rode out their time on the eastern lines of UP. On those Kansas mountains, I presume?[;)]

long, high-speed freights across Nebraska.

dd

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

there are operational limits as to how many locomotives can be used at the head end of a train. UP is frequently at that limit on Sherman Hill and Echo Canyon. I have seen two trains with 8 engines in the last 3 months. The "double diesels" were one approach to addressing their horsepower needs. The 8500 series 6000 hp units were another approach. I am wondering that with the improved reliability of today's locomotive, a double engined unit might again be practical.

dd

Ironically, on the Utahrails website article, by Don Strack that SSW9389 linked above; it says that most of the U-50's rode out their time on the eastern lines of UP. On those Kansas mountains, I presume?[;)]

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Don Strack states that UP did a study that determined that yearly maintenace for a diesel locomotive ran about $7000 per year, regadless of the H.P. Wouldn't a DDA35 have just about the same number of maintenance-requiring parts as two GP35's?

No, it only had one brakestand, this is a significant expense as it must be completely disassembled and inspected each year, also only one controlstand with throttle and reverser, one toilet, etc. The other parts would be the same. If one of the GP35s was a cabless booster then they would be close.

[Murphy Siding]

SSW9389: Thanks for the links! They were quite interesting. Don Strack states that UP did a study that determined that yearly maintenace for a diesel locomotive ran about $7000 per year, regardless of the H.P. Wouldn't a DDA35 have just about the same number of maintenance-requiring parts as two GP35's?

[PBenham]

To me the most compelling "double diesel" had to have been the Alco Century 855 it was ugly, for one thing(not that that would bother UP, then or now) then it was an oddball,which meant that if anything went wrong,it got stored until it's unique parts arrived. Then too,they had aluminum wiring,like the later and equally disastrous U50Cs (which deserved a better fate,too)which made them a major maintence headache which was not appreciated at all, by any one concerned. I would have loved to see the A-B-A set[wow] (60-60B-61) accelerating out of Laramie, smoking it up with those 16 cyl. 251Cs![yeah] Not to mention, seeing them in the current "Building America" paint scheme![:p] Ah, but ponder this the whole set in Cornell Red with a white outlined LV herald over white chevrons on the nose and the LV flag on the lead hood and 48" Lehigh Valley lettering on the rear hood![:p][;)][wow][wow]

[Lyon_Wonder]

IMO, a quick and dirty solution would have been to permanently connect an A and cabless B unit together, creating an articulated B+B+B+B double diesel that would have been easier on tracks with sharper curves than the non-articulated DD35/40s. I believe EMD did something similar with some of their early FT units by using drawbars instead of couplers, and railroads who used this option considered an FT A-B-B-A combination as a single engine.

[SSW9389]

Another Don Strack article here about the Centennials http://utahrails.net/webpubs/up-dda40x.php This one was also originally published in Diesel Era.

[SSW9389]

Go here http://utahrails.net/webpubs/up-dd35.php for an in depth article on the DD35s and DDA35s by Don Strack. Strack explains why the UP originally went with the double diesels. This article was originally published in Diesel Era.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by shmc



i wasn't sure what the dd35's look like so i searched. figure id post it up on here!

Welcome to the forum.[:)]

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by shmc



i wasn't sure what the dd35's look like so i searched. figure id post it up on here!

That's a DD35B - there were "A" units as well. Just add a cab on one end...

DD35As had spartan cabs to be exact (std cab) and the DDA40Xs had wide cabs.

[espeefoamer]

Holy cow! There's a whole generation of fans who never saw these engines[:0].Makes me feel like an old [censored].

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by shmc



i wasn't sure what the dd35's look like so i searched. figure id post it up on here!

That's a DD35B - there were "A" units as well. Just add a cab on one end...

[Anonymous]

i wasn't sure what the dd35's look like so i searched. figure id post it up on here!

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

there are operational limits as to how many locomotives can be used at the head end of a train. UP is frequently at that limit on Sherman Hill and Echo Canyon. I have seen two trains with 8 engines in the last 3 months. The "double diesels" were one approach to addressing their horsepower needs. The 8500 series 6000 hp units were another approach. I am wondering that with the improved reliability of today's locomotive, a double engined unit might again be practical.
dd

Would the operational limits have to do with coupler strength? I would think that pairs of standard diesel units could have been semi-permanently coupled together pretty easily to accompli***he same end result ?

The most important limitation is coupler strength, reliability of MU signal indication is another, dynamic braking force, etc. Semi-permanent coupling solves almost nothing and creates other problems unless one part lacked cab controls.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

there are operational limits as to how many locomotives can be used at the head end of a train. UP is frequently at that limit on Sherman Hill and Echo Canyon. I have seen two trains with 8 engines in the last 3 months. The "double diesels" were one approach to addressing their horsepower needs. The 8500 series 6000 hp units were another approach. I am wondering that with the improved reliability of today's locomotive, a double engined unit might again be practical.
dd

Would the operational limits have to do with coupler strength? I would think that pairs of standard diesel units could have been semi-permanently coupled together pretty easily to accomplish same end result ?

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by adrianspeeder

One set of systems controls for two units gives more bang for the buck. What helped do them in was that modular circuit board controls that could be swapped easily to get a unit back on the road quick, and not have to worry bout monster units runnin into size related problems.

Adrianspeeder

The Centennials were the first EMD diesels to use modular circuit cards for controls, although the modules were custom designed and so not interchangeable with later Dash-2 locomotives.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The various double diesels were basically the idea of the CMO at the time, for most of the reasons cited above. Runthrough arrangements with connections were still relatively uncommon, so motive power that basically restricted to UP's main lines was not a problem. With the retirement of the CMO and increasing numbers of runthroughs, commonality of power with connecting roads became more important so the double diesels were retired.

[adrianspeeder]

One set of systems controls for two units gives more bang for the buck. What helped do them in was that modular circuit board controls that could be swapped easily to get a unit back on the road quick, and not have to worry bout monster units runnin into size related problems.

Adrianspeeder